Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-IPD) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials when individual participant data are available
Heal, C.; Bero, L.; Antoniou, G. A.; Au, N.; Aviram, A.; Berghella, V.; Bordewijk, E. M.; Bramley, P.; Brown, N. J. L.; Clarke, M.; Fiala, L.; |Grohmann, S.; Gurrin, L. C.; Hayden, J. A.; Hunter, K. E.; Hussey, I.; Kahan, B. C.; Lensen, S.; Lundh, A.; O'Connell, N. E.; Parker, L.; Lam, E.; Meyerowitz-Katz, G.; Naudet, F.; Redman, B. K.; Sheldrick, K.; Sydenham, E.; van Wely, M.; Wang, R.; Wjst, M.; Kirkham, J. J.; Wilkinson, J. D.
Show abstract
IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigate the safety and efficacy of interventions. It has become clear however that some RCTs include fabricated data. The INSPECT-SR tool assesses the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. However, where individual participant data (IPD) can be obtained, a more thorough assessment of trustworthiness is possible. Consequently, INSPECT-SR recommends obtaining IPD to resolve uncertainties, though there is no consensus on appropriate methods for forensic analysis of raw data. Our aim is to evaluate IPD checks to establish which are worthwhile, and how they can be implemented in a new tool, INSPECT-IPD (Investigating Problematic Clinical Trials with Individual Participant Data). Methods and analysisUsing international expert consensus and empirical evidence, the INSPECT-IPD tool will be developed using five stages: (1) compiling a list of IPD trustworthiness checks, (2) evaluating the usefulness and ease of interpretation of the checks when applying them to a collection of presumed authentic and fabricated IPD datasets, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which checks are supported by expert consensus, (4) a series of consensus meetings for selection of checks to be included in the draft tool and finally (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in: a) the production of systematic reviews, and b) the journal editorial process for RCT submissions, leading to refinement based on user feedback. Ethics and disseminationThe University of Manchester ethics decision tool determined that ethical approval was not required (18 June 2024). This project includes secondary research and surveys of healthcare researchers on topics relating to their work. All results will be published as preprints and open-access articles, and the final tool will be freely available. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDYO_LIAn international consensus process and empirical evidence will be used to develop the tool. C_LIO_LIThe development and dissemination of the tool will involve key stakeholders. C_LIO_LIIn the absence of a gold-standard test for problematic data, this tool should not be interpreted as a diagnostic instrument for trustworthiness. Instead, it will assist researchers in assessing the trustworthiness of a study. C_LIO_LIThe tool will only be applicable when individual participant data (IPD) can be accessed. Where IPD can be accessed, the ability to assess trustworthiness will be improved. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 95%
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 94%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 99%
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 95%
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Use of estimands in cluster randomised trials: a review 93%
- A modular pipeline for natural language processing-screened human abstraction of a pragmatic trial outcome from electronic health records 92%
- Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: a scoping review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data 96%
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 95%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 95%
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 95%
- Investigating the use of a one-page infographic to improve recruitment and retention to the BASIL+ Randomised Controlled Trial: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.